Sad reality: The *NFC* is STACKED next season

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by vaden:
Schedules would be far more fair than they are now, because we wouldn't have 14 of 16 totally predestined matchups like we do now. We already know 14 of the 16 teams the 49ers will be playing in 2017.

I get liking the system the way it is now, wanting to keep divisions and conferences, but a system that allows 8-8 teams in the playoffs over 11-5 teams can't possibly be fairer than one that seeds by W/L records. It's a tradeoff sacrificing fair competition for tradition, and that's fine if people want that, but I don't.

because of the size of the league, you would never get fair schedules without conferences or divisions. the reason why divisions work is that you are competing against a small set of teams who have nearly identical schedules; if you are the best of that set, you move on to another, smaller set, and if you are the best in that, then you move to an even smaller set, and if you are the best in that, you are a champion.

without that organization you would have teams playing very different schedules and advancing to the playoffs based on very disparate circumstances. that's not fair, and its not interesting, as a fan.

also, if that 11-5 team doesn't make the playoffs but an 8-8 team does, then that 11-5 team should have done better against its division. you control your own destiny.

I'm not saying the schedules would be totally fair. That's impossible. They'd just be a lot fairer than they are now, because divisions are wildly unequal. A lot easier to control your destiny if you're playing in a crappy division year after year.

Originally posted by vaden:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by vaden:
Schedules would be far more fair than they are now, because we wouldn't have 14 of 16 totally predestined matchups like we do now. We already know 14 of the 16 teams the 49ers will be playing in 2017.

I get liking the system the way it is now, wanting to keep divisions and conferences, but a system that allows 8-8 teams in the playoffs over 11-5 teams can't possibly be fairer than one that seeds by W/L records. It's a tradeoff sacrificing fair competition for tradition, and that's fine if people want that, but I don't.

because of the size of the league, you would never get fair schedules without conferences or divisions. the reason why divisions work is that you are competing against a small set of teams who have nearly identical schedules; if you are the best of that set, you move on to another, smaller set, and if you are the best in that, then you move to an even smaller set, and if you are the best in that, you are a champion.

without that organization you would have teams playing very different schedules and advancing to the playoffs based on very disparate circumstances. that's not fair, and its not interesting, as a fan.

also, if that 11-5 team doesn't make the playoffs but an 8-8 team does, then that 11-5 team should have done better against its division. you control your own destiny.

I'm not saying the schedules would be totally fair. That's impossible. They'd just be a lot fairer than they are now, because divisions are wildly unequal. A lot easier to control your destiny if you're playing in a crappy division year after year.

how would they be more fair if they were based on regional rivalries or some other nonsense? when you have divisions, all the teams in the division play roughly the same schedule. that's fair. sometimes that leads to mediocre teams coming out of bad divisions. So what? they'll get weeded out in the playoffs. plus it would be impossible to play teams home and away, thus negating homefield advantage. it would be like college football, and college football has the worst system in all of sports.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by vaden:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by vaden:
Schedules would be far more fair than they are now, because we wouldn't have 14 of 16 totally predestined matchups like we do now. We already know 14 of the 16 teams the 49ers will be playing in 2017.

I get liking the system the way it is now, wanting to keep divisions and conferences, but a system that allows 8-8 teams in the playoffs over 11-5 teams can't possibly be fairer than one that seeds by W/L records. It's a tradeoff sacrificing fair competition for tradition, and that's fine if people want that, but I don't.

because of the size of the league, you would never get fair schedules without conferences or divisions. the reason why divisions work is that you are competing against a small set of teams who have nearly identical schedules; if you are the best of that set, you move on to another, smaller set, and if you are the best in that, then you move to an even smaller set, and if you are the best in that, you are a champion.

without that organization you would have teams playing very different schedules and advancing to the playoffs based on very disparate circumstances. that's not fair, and its not interesting, as a fan.

also, if that 11-5 team doesn't make the playoffs but an 8-8 team does, then that 11-5 team should have done better against its division. you control your own destiny.

I'm not saying the schedules would be totally fair. That's impossible. They'd just be a lot fairer than they are now, because divisions are wildly unequal. A lot easier to control your destiny if you're playing in a crappy division year after year.

how would they be more fair if they were based on regional rivalries or some other nonsense? when you have divisions, all the teams in the division play roughly the same schedule. that's fair. sometimes that leads to mediocre teams coming out of bad divisions. So what? they'll get weeded out in the playoffs. plus it would be impossible to play teams home and away, thus negating homefield advantage. it would be like college football, and college football has the worst system in all of sports.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The schedules are based on regional rivalries right now. I said we can keep some of those while also having more equitable scheduling.

"So what" if mediocre teams make the playoffs? That explains a lot of the difference in our positions. I don't think teams that go .500 or worse should ever be allowed in the playoffs, whereas you are fine with it. There are many 10+ win teams that could've won the SB but were kept out of the playoffs by inferior teams.

It would not be impossible to play teams home and away.

Originally posted by vaden:
That makes no sense whatsoever. The schedules are based on regional rivalries right now. I said we can keep some of those while also having more equitable scheduling.

"So what" if mediocre teams make the playoffs? That explains a lot of the difference in our positions. I don't think teams that go .500 or worse should ever be allowed in the playoffs, whereas you are fine with it. There are many 10+ win teams that could've won the SB but were kept out of the playoffs by inferior teams.

It would not be impossible to play teams home and away.

there are 32 teams. without conferences or divisions, how do you organize an equitable schedule that includes home and away stints?

if you keep regional rivalries as they exist now, you are keeping divisions. if you are keeping divisions, you need to keep the conferences too.

i'm not "ok" with poor teams making the playoffs. its a reality of the modern NFL, though, because "parity" means that the teams aren't separated by very much. and you're not going to come up with a system that allows every "worthy" team in; besides, "worth" is subjective. Good divisions, because of their difficulty, can produce teams with mediocre records too, you know.

Originally posted by KEGster:
East
Giants = 2011 Champs - Surprised if they make it past the first round of the playoffs this year.
Eagles = Hot finish last season - Unpredictable. Still never won the big game with Reid at the helm.
Cowboys = Playoff contender - Will never win IN the playoffs.



North
Packers = 2010 Champs - Will slump in 2012.
Bears = Title Contender - Say what?
Lions = Playoff team - Wildcard, one and done.



South
Saints = 2009 Champs - Most likely to succeed again this year.
Falcons = Playoff team - Capable of fighting tooth and nail with the saints if they can get some consistency.
Panthers = Playoff contender - Say what?



West
49ers = Title Contender - Hard to see us NOT being one of the best.
Cardinals = Hot finish last season - Cold as Ice this one.
Seahawks = Playoff Contender - Dude....seriously?

This is what I think....^^^

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by vaden:
That makes no sense whatsoever. The schedules are based on regional rivalries right now. I said we can keep some of those while also having more equitable scheduling.

"So what" if mediocre teams make the playoffs? That explains a lot of the difference in our positions. I don't think teams that go .500 or worse should ever be allowed in the playoffs, whereas you are fine with it. There are many 10+ win teams that could've won the SB but were kept out of the playoffs by inferior teams.

It would not be impossible to play teams home and away.

there are 32 teams. without conferences or divisions, how do you organize an equitable schedule that includes home and away stints?

if you keep regional rivalries as they exist now, you are keeping divisions. if you are keeping divisions, you need to keep the conferences too.

i'm not "ok" with poor teams making the playoffs. its a reality of the modern NFL, though, because "parity" means that the teams aren't separated by very much. and you're not going to come up with a system that allows every "worthy" team in; besides, "worth" is subjective. Good divisions, because of their difficulty, can produce teams with mediocre records too, you know.

Which is exactly why I want to do away with divisions and the concept of 14 of 16 games being predetermined years in advance. That will make W/L a better indicator of performance. They could keep 1 or 2 or even 3 home/away rivalries and still do away with teams in sets of 4 having to play 14 of 16 identical opponents. But even if the schedules were kept exactly the same, they could still get rid of divisions and conferences and seed everything according to W/L. That would be fairer than what we have now.

Originally posted by vaden:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by vaden:
That makes no sense whatsoever. The schedules are based on regional rivalries right now. I said we can keep some of those while also having more equitable scheduling.

"So what" if mediocre teams make the playoffs? That explains a lot of the difference in our positions. I don't think teams that go .500 or worse should ever be allowed in the playoffs, whereas you are fine with it. There are many 10+ win teams that could've won the SB but were kept out of the playoffs by inferior teams.

It would not be impossible to play teams home and away.

there are 32 teams. without conferences or divisions, how do you organize an equitable schedule that includes home and away stints?

if you keep regional rivalries as they exist now, you are keeping divisions. if you are keeping divisions, you need to keep the conferences too.

i'm not "ok" with poor teams making the playoffs. its a reality of the modern NFL, though, because "parity" means that the teams aren't separated by very much. and you're not going to come up with a system that allows every "worthy" team in; besides, "worth" is subjective. Good divisions, because of their difficulty, can produce teams with mediocre records too, you know.

Which is exactly why I want to do away with divisions and the concept of 14 of 16 games being predetermined years in advance. That will make W/L a better indicator of performance. They could keep 1 or 2 or even 3 home/away rivalries and still do away with teams in sets of 4 having to play 14 of 16 identical opponents. But even if the schedules were kept exactly the same, they could still get rid of divisions and conferences and seed everything according to W/L. That would be fairer than what we have now.

you would have to actually make an example of how a schedule would work in your format, because I can't see it.

Major players who moved from the AFC to NFC after day one of free agency:
-Vincent Jackson
-Brandon Marshall
-Pierre Garcon
-Cortland Finnegan


Major players who moved from the NFC to AFC:
-Robert Meachem

***The top remaining free agents (according to Profootballtalk) are all from the AFC***
-Peyton Manning
-Mario Williams
-Mike Wallace (RFA)
-Jared Gaither
-Lardarius Webb (RFA)
-Brandon Carr

Just as a small example, keep the 6 divisional games but stop scheduling divisions against each other. Instead of playing 8 games against 2 other divisions, play 8 games against 4 or 8. Makes it less likely that teams are punished or rewarded for playing solely against good/weak divisions. But like I said, I never worked out all the details because it's so farfetched. People love divisions and conferences.

Even making no scheduling changes and just seeding by W/L record would be better, this would've been the 2012 bracket:

1) GB 15-1
2-4) NE/SF/NO 13-3 (seeded by tiebreakers)
5) BAL 12-4
6) PIT 12-4
7-9) HOU/DET/ATL 10-6
10-12) NYG/CIN/TEN 9-7

Originally posted by vaden:
Just as a small example, keep the 6 divisional games but stop scheduling divisions against each other. Instead of playing 8 games against 2 other divisions, play 8 games against 4 or 8. Makes it less likely that teams are punished or rewarded for playing solely against good/weak divisions. But like I said, I never worked out all the details because it's so farfetched. People love divisions and conferences.

Even making no scheduling changes and just seeding by W/L record would be better, this would've been the 2012 bracket:

1) GB 15-1
2-4) NE/SF/NO 13-3 (seeded by tiebreakers)
5) BAL 12-4
6) PIT 12-4
7-9) HOU/DET/ATL 10-6
10-12) NYG/CIN/TEN 9-7

its not that farfetched, i just don't think its a better system. the way it works now makes sense, its simple, effective, and more often than not the really good teams are rewarded for their regular season success.

Breaking News... Josh Morgan signed with the Redskins

Charles Woodson and the Packers OLine is getting injured more easily.

Originally posted by SoCal9ers:
Breaking News... Josh Morgan signed with the Redskins

And so it has come to pass.

Seahawks had two lucky wins , nay three. VERY LUCKY wins.

Cards have an easy schedule. These niners better destroy today otherwise momentum will be on the Seahawks. THREE way damn tie. So ghey.